The White House has promised swift action on homelessness. It aims to dismantle encampments, force addicts and the mentally ill into treatment, and yank federal funds from cities that refuse to police tents and open-air drug use. For residents exasperated by sidewalk squalor, that sounds like overdue toughness.
In reality, casting the homeless as nothing more than a public nuisance understates the crisis and diverts money and attention from the broader solutions that are needed.
Encampments are only the visible edge of a wider emergency. About two-thirds of unhoused Americans spend nights in cars, motels or overcrowded shelters. From 2023 to last year, the number of people experiencing homelessness nationally jumped 18 percent, with the fastest growth among families. Behind those numbers is a structural shortage of low-rent homes — more than 7 million units by the latest count — while Medicaid and mental-health systems remain threadbare and under attack from US President Donald Trump’s administration.
There are no quick fixes, but progress is possible. Since 2009, veteran homelessness has fallen 55 percent because the US Congress paired long-term rent subsidies with case management and healthcare through a single, accountable system. Houston used the same “housing first” formula, with placement in permanent housing plus voluntary services, to cut its homeless count by more than 60 percent.
Similar methods have worked well in cities abroad. For example, Helsinki used them to push street homelessness to near zero (until recent cuts to support let it reappear).
All successful programs recognize that stable shelter is essential. A settled address is a place to sleep in safety, use medicines as directed, and store important documents and belongings. Randomized trials have shown that housing-first approaches, especially when linked with health and other services, work better for many of the homeless — and far less expensively — than rotating people through emergency wards and county jails.
Short-term rental aid, emergency cash after a job loss and legal help in preventing evictions all reduce entries into shelters. States and cities should reform the zoning rules that throttle construction of small, inexpensive apartments.
Federal housing vouchers — which help offset housing costs for about 2 million low-income households — are effective, but demand dwarfs supply and most eligible families never get them. Studies show that vouchers do not deter work, and the cost is less than what would otherwise be spent on recurring emergency-room visits, police interventions and stays in jail.
Granted, these approaches are most likely to succeed with those in shelters; tackling chronic street homelessness is harder, because mental illness and drug addiction play a bigger role.
The White House’s plan concentrates on that second group. It seeks to bar federal housing help from anyone who cannot pass a sobriety test and funnels dollars from prevention to policing. It urges states to expand “civil commitments” without saying where the subjects would be sent, how they would be treated or how they would eventually exit.
The focus on street homelessness, which amounts to a breakdown of public order, is understandable, and more civil commitments to medical facilities are necessary. However, residential treatments for addiction and mental illness are not cheap. More funding is needed.
Short of compulsory removal, mobile health teams that pair clinicians with outreach workers can reduce street homelessness cost-effectively, reducing emergency calls and arrests.
The public’s impatience with homelessness and the disorder that goes with it is justified, but simply hiding the homeless is not the answer. The right kind of help — housing plus treatment and other services — is not just more humane. Anything less is bound to fail.
The Bloomberg Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power
RSS